amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Too many options to choose among!

Here are some pros and cons, and some additional possibilities:

Option 1. Replace your EF-S 18-135mm. If yours is fifteen years old, it's the first version with the slower & noisier micro motor auto focus. The newer "STM" version and newest "USM" version both use an improved optical formula for better image quality than the first version of the lens. In addition, STM focus drive is quicker and quieter than micro motor. And USM is even faster still (Canon claims it's 2X to 4X faster focusng than STM). Both the newer lenses also are closer focusing. So if your original version served you well, very likely you'd be quite happy with either of the newer versions. I don't know what they sell for there, but in the U.S. the STM is selling for $400 new and the USM for $600. The STM is pretty easy to find discounted or used. The USM has only been around a year or two, so is harder to find used or discounted.

2. The EF 28-135mm IS USM is a decent lens, but it is now discontinued and was a hold-over from the days of film. Still, there are a lot of them around that can be bought used for relatively little money. And it rivals the 24-105L (first version) for image quality, AF speed, stabilization and close focus ability. It doesn't seem as well built (is more plasticky), but actually has proven to be just about as durable as that particular L, too. The 28-135 has very good IQ throughout most of it's range, but gets a little soft all the way out at 135mm, benefits from being stopped down to f/8 (the two more recent 18-135s seem sharper at 135mm). The 28-135mm can work quite well and often is a bargain used, at around $200.

HOWEVER, this lens is an f/3.5 to f/5.6, same as all the 18-135s, so there's no light to be gained with it. Exposures would be the same, regardless of the larger diameter filter the 28-135 uses.

It also won't give you "more magnification".... 135mm is 135mm. This is true with all focal lengths and lenses, not just these two. Any given focal length will be the same on your camera, regardless of whether the lense was designed for crop sensor or full frame.

3. Canon offers a very good EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I'd normally recommend that to anyone who needs wider than the 17 or 18mm most zooms of this type offer, but doesn't want to buy and carry around a separate lens... However, you already have the excellent EF-S 10-22mm, so this probably isn't a good option for you.

4a. It sounds as if you're struggling to get enough light in many situations. If you want to gather more light with your walk around zoom, you'll need one that offers larger apertures... f/2.8, f/2 or f/1.8. The "problems" with these are that they have narrower ranges of focal lengths, are larger and heavier, and they tend to cost a lot more. An excellent choice and good example is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8... top image quality and a faster f/2.8 throughout it's range (2/3 stop faster than your current zoom at the wide end... and even more at 55mm). That lens uses 77mm filters and costs $900. Other possibilities include several 24-70mm f/2.8 (Canon and others) and even a Sigma 24-35mm f/2 offering another full stop of brightness or a Tamron 18-35mm f/1.8 offering an additional one and a third stop of light. Note that these really fast zooms have even narrower ranges of focal lengths... and that they have protruding, convex front elements that prevent using standard filters.... and they have A LOT of glass in them, making them quite large and heavy.

4b. Another approach to low light conditions is to get one or two fast prime lenses to supplement a more modest walk-around zoom. Those primes (i.e., not zooms), can be a lot more affordable, smaller and lighter. For example, there are 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8.... all of which are reasonable size and cost. There are even a few super compact "pancake" prime lenses. (There are also even "faster" primes such as 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2... but those are A LOT bigger & heavier and FAR more expensive.)

5. "Do everything" zooms like the EF-S 18-200mm and some third party lenses others have mentioned generally will be slower focusing and not offer as good image quality as many of the above, less extreme lenses. Extreme range focal length zooms also tend to be miserable for low light conditions. If you're struggling now with an f/5.6 lens, just imagine what it will be like trying to use an even slower f/6.3! If you are starting to suspect I'm not a fan... you're right! "Do everything" lenses make no sense to me. I bought an interchangeable lens camera to be able to change lenses and adapt the camera for different situations! If I'd wanted a "do it all", I'd have gotten a much less expensive non-interchangeable lens "point n shoot" camera! Besides, you don't "gain" anything with the 18-200mm.... since you already have a 70-200mm.

Of all the above, considering your other lenses, need for better low light performance.... If the cost isn't an issue, I'd get the excellent Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. The best alternative would be to replace your 18-135mm with one of the newer versions and add one or two fast primes to handle those low light situations.

Hope this helps!

EdU239 Loc: The Northeast

The newish (2016) 18-135 USM has what Canon calls “NANO USM” technology in the form of a small attachment that supposedly gives it the movie capabilities of their STM motor. I understand that the optics are the same as those on the latest iteration of the 18-135 STM, which is slightly cheaper. I have the USM version on an 80D and think it’s pretty good. You might also look at the older EF-S 15-85 which I think has marginally better IQ. It sounds like the longer reach would be a priority for you, but along with all the other suggestions, the Sigma 17-50 2.8 is a good deal cheaper and I believe somewhat lighter than the Canon EF-S equivalent and most reviews say it’s an excellent alternative.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

I agree. I bought this a few months ago and it's a great walk around lens as it covers a very wide range and is reasonably sharp. I bought it to replace my Tamron 16-300 which didn't quite have enough reach for me as I shoot wildlife and need the reach but also need the portability. It works well for both.

nehall Loc: Martinsville, VA

I have a Canon 7D Mark II and for years, the Tamron 18-270 was my walk around lens. Loved it! When it crashed, I replaced it with the newer version and was never satisfied with the sharpness at the upper ranges. Finally decided to bite the bullet and replaced it with the Canon 24-105 f/4L. Love it! Was a little skeptical about losing that much range, but even with cropping, my photos are MUCH sharper than they were with the Tamron.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

I'm a fan of the new 18-135 IS USM lens. It is sharp, fast focusing, and provides the wide angle I need along with some reach on my 77D. It is my walk around lens, and stays on my camera a majority of the time. If you went with this lens, I'm sure you would appreciate the significant improvements in the latest generation of the Canon 18-135 lens.

Selene03

Thanks for this excellent evaluation of various lenses for crop sensor canons! I probably have all I need, but this really convinces me that I do. I mostly use a full frame, but when using the smaller one I have liked the 18-135 stm as a walk-around lens and the 10-18 for interiors and street scenes (New York, for example). I use the newest 70-300 USM nano for birds and wildlife and other long distance shots. I have the 100-400 II as well, and have used it with my sl2, but i like the light combo. I have not been a fan of long zooms either, but most of my experience with them was when I was still using Nikon cameras.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

I've had a couple of 18-135s and never regretted using it as a walk around. The newest one is superior.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Ditto.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

My call is to either go with another 18-135 (w/ STM) or w/ the Canon 18-135. I've owned both the Tamron 16-300, and the 18-400. I sold both. I currently use the Canon 18-200. In ratings, the 18-135 is higher than the 18-200, but it is still rated high anyway, just not as high as the 18-135.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If you are considering the new Tamron 18-400 but are leary of the weight, do as I did. I got the Sigma 18-300 and am quite satisfied.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

TFH

Canon 24-105L. It's my go to lease.

chikid68 Loc: Tennesse USA

if you have had good luck with your old 18-135 I would get another one
while the 28-135 is a decent lens it has bad zoom creep which leads to focus issues at the wide end if you recompose after focusing(back button focus)
I lose at least half of the wide shots like this plus on a crop sensor it is not really wide enough having a functional equivalence of 45-219mm good zoom but bad wide .

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

A 35mm fixed lens can be perfect and teaches you to physically frame and think about perspective. Challenging, fun, little weight and very sharp images.